https://liberationschool.org/black-bolsheviks-and-white-lies/
https://www.liberationnews.org/06-02-01-remembering-langston-hughes-html/
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Sunday, September 08, 2019
Words on Class Issues.
rosa roja TJ 11 hours ago
Your main question is this: Is "white America" collectively responsible for the oppression of black people? If you ask it in those words, I will answer No, but I don't think a one-word answer is adequate. If you bear with me, I will try to indicate where I think a fuller answer lies.
The starting point must be that the ultimate responsibility for the oppression of "black people" in the US and everywhere, falls on the ruling class in the core capitalist nations of Europe and America. They are the ones who organize it, and who benefit the most from it. It was European (i.e. "White") imperialism that plundered the non-European world, instituted chattel slavery, organized the genocide in the settler colonies, and carried out all those crimes that Marx denounces so eloquently in Capital.
But to promote this process, a racist ideology had to be created, and it has sunk its roots into the culture of Europe (and the US, etc). This culture influences the thought -- and therefore the actions -- of everyone, not just members of the ruling class. (I don't see how any one who has lived in the US could deny this, or how a historical materialist could have expected anything different.) In a sense then, a shared culture does imply a kind of "collective responsibility".
Since you read this website, you might be interested that Trotsky did not feel the need to mince words in discussing white racism of his era (1933): "But today the white workers in relation to the Negroes are the oppressors, scoundrels, who persecute the black and the yellow, hold them in contempt and lynch them." And he exhorted his followers in the US to carry out "an uncompromising merciless struggle ... against the colossal prejudices of the white workers". You might also be interested, if you haven't seen it, to read what Lenin had to say about how a layer of English workers benefited materially from the super-exploitation of the English colonies, and how this hobbled the workers' movement.
I'm not sure I've answered your questions, but I hope at least it's the beginning of an answer.
You also asked about my "position on Hannah-Jones". I know her only from this one article. She writes well and with passion, and she brings out some historical facts that eveyone needs to know. But her analysis leads to a dead end. It operates at a superficial level that ignores the material basis of racial oppression and its roots in capitalism/imperialism. Some of her prose descends into what people sometimes called "Pork Chop Nationalism" in the 1970's, when what's wanted is the "revolutionary nationalism" of people like Fred Hampton, who before his murder by the state was forging an alliance between workers and community members of all colours (the original Rainbow Coalition). She even seems to want to drive a wedge between Africa and its diaspora! Claiming to combat racism without connecting it to imperialism as Malcolm X did is dangerously misguided.
rosa roja TJ 15 hours ago
Thanks for the link, TJ. Actually I had not read her article, but now that I have, I can state with certainty that nowhere does she claim or imply there is a biological basis to racism. She referred to "DNA" only in one sentence, where it is obviously intended as a metaphor. For wsws
to imply the opposite was not honest.
Now let me make a start on your questions. I do NOT endorse the NYT viewpoint, in fact I rarely read them these days. Always the voice of the capitalist ruling class, they have more recently degenerated so much that most of their articles are more fluff and propaganda than they are news.
I will reply to your other questions in a separate post.
rosa roja Yasir 21 hours ago
"All you scholars should know, the conditions and the execution of slavery was much different than what was done in the Americas."
This is very important. You have put your finger on what is dishonest about this article. Equally important is that modern slavery was part of a bigger phenomenon, a Euro-American racism/imperialism that is a fundamental mode of organization of capitalism on a world scale.
One thing I would add, however, is that I do not think that a "level playing field" is a good description of what we want. We want a cooperative society that has no economic winners and losers.
rosa roja 21 hours ago
Response to Pierre, Jim Bergren, MB, de rubempre.
To Pierre:
My comments are not meant for you. I comment here because I believe that the site has many honest readers who are anxious for an honest discussion. It has them because it tells the truth about many things that the bourgeois media lies about. Unfortunately wsws in important ways ALSO deviates from the tradition it claims to uphold.
If you look at my old comments you will see that in many cases I praised articles here. It happens rarely now. If and when I decide that all the thoughtful readers have been driven away by comments like yours, I'll stop commenting.
To MB and Jim:
If you read the article carefully, I think you will agree with me. The authors wrote, "Hannah-Jones's reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive racial antagonisms from innate biological processes." If she really said this, evidence should have been provided. The use of a metaphor is hardly evidence.
To de rubempre:
The metaphor does NOT imply that people of European descent are biologically programmed to be racists. It is merely implying that racism is deeply embedded in the history and present of the US. If the article wants to dispute that, fine, but don't make charges you cannot substantiate.
rosa roja rosa roja a month ago
Too many responses to reply to separately!
Dear Warren, Pierre, Eric, Matt,
I commented as I did because I think we need to be objective, and objectivity demands that we not cherry pick quotes to fit a preconceived point of view. Unfortunately the article did so in my opinion.
That was the only reason I commented, but I will also try to address some of the more general points you all have raised:
1. AOC is a social democrat and nothing more, but for the moment she is intervening in politics in a positive manner. Should we be unhappy about that?
2. Social democracy too often turns into "social imperialism". I see no sign of that in AOC's statements.
3. Support for decolonization of Puerto Rico is valid and important. Maybe a website based in the centre of the Empire has a hard time understanding this.
4. To slam Ocasio-Cortez as a fake because she's a member of the Democratic Party is disingenuous. I personally do not believe the party can be reformed, but that doesn't mean that people who try to reform it are all hypocrites.
rosa roja 4 months ago
Attempts by characters like Shockley and Herrnstein
to "scientifically" justify imperialism/racism and class-exploitation are repugnant but they are hardly new. They are as old as capitalism and always promoted by the ruling class. If anything is new it is the success of the Cambridge students in excluding this particular bourgeois ideologue from their university.
oswald durand pierre • 3 hours ago
Pierre, your 'innocence' in this matter is really revealing of the unhealthy political atmosphere you dwell in.
I assure you that it is no revelation to me that politicians are "SELECTED" by their party bosses before being presented to their constituents to be elected. Reading your comments leads me to believe that you think there's some kind of conspiracy involved to foist Black politicians on an unsuspecting public. Really?
Let's look at the selection of Barack H. Obama. As far as I know, he made all the moves required to be in contention to get the backing of people with power in his party.
He did so by going to the right schools, holding the right jobs, marrying the right kind of lady and making friends with the right kind of people. His trajectory was similar to that of his rivals for the democratic nomination. If you can show me that the rules that apply were cast aside on his behalf, I will take your claim on affirmative action as a serious one instead of the nonsense I think it is, used by White losers to salve their bruised egos.
Tom Peters wrote: "The ruling class, generally speaking, decided to increase the numbers of black people in bourgeois politics, big business, academia, the state apparatus, etc. One of the mechanisms for this was affirmative action policies.
Obama is an obvious concrete example of this change: His elevation to the presidency would have been inconceivable in the Jim Crow era. He has also publicly stated that he "undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” in his academic career. https://www.nytimes.com/200...
Oprah Winfrey's rise to worldwide fame and fortune also wouldn't have happened under Jim Crow. Again, this seems like an obvious point to make. Winfrey's first broadcasting jobs were helped by broadcasters' affirmative action policies, as she herself was aware.
If one compares the position of these individuals to that of black political leaders and celebrities in 1960, the difference is obvious: Obama and Winfrey are both richer and far more powerful. It doesn't require much special insight or painstaking analysis to see the change that has taken place in the ruling class."
Mr. Peters is correct, the Jim Crow era is dead and the ruling class has gotten better at picking its representatives, certain nostalgic types want to revive it. My main objection to the anti-affirmative action crowd is the exaggeration of the import of these programs. So what if she got her first job due to some employer's affirmative action policies, lots of Whites get these breaks for reasons ranging from the employer seeing something of him/herself in that young person, to the desire to have sex with the candidate for the job.
If affirmative action is to be judged by the end results, the bourgeoisie's investment in Obama and Winfrey paid rich dividends, based on his management of the 2008 economic crisis and her ability to flog products such as books, etc. on tv. The WSWS may not like these facts but it cannot deny the fact it was money well spent.
Why is the WSWS fixated on a program that began it's death agony as far back as the Bakke case, forty-one years ago, and is now dead an buried? If, as the WSWS likes to claim, affirmative action impeded the advance of the proletariat's march to power, why did reversals to that program fail to lead to the WSWS's favored outcome? Too bad you failed to read Trotsky on the "Negro Question". He would have shown you how a real revolutionist approaches such problems.
oswald durand Ozmay • 3 days ago
Ozmay, thanks for the link. You are correct that I object to the impression given that Blacks who hold positions in science, business and other fields do so solely because of affirmative action. That's a lie. I have zero objection to criticisms of some black public figures who make overly broad claims. To me they are as ridiculous as people who want to reduce Black successes to 'affirmative action'
Your main question is this: Is "white America" collectively responsible for the oppression of black people? If you ask it in those words, I will answer No, but I don't think a one-word answer is adequate. If you bear with me, I will try to indicate where I think a fuller answer lies.
The starting point must be that the ultimate responsibility for the oppression of "black people" in the US and everywhere, falls on the ruling class in the core capitalist nations of Europe and America. They are the ones who organize it, and who benefit the most from it. It was European (i.e. "White") imperialism that plundered the non-European world, instituted chattel slavery, organized the genocide in the settler colonies, and carried out all those crimes that Marx denounces so eloquently in Capital.
But to promote this process, a racist ideology had to be created, and it has sunk its roots into the culture of Europe (and the US, etc). This culture influences the thought -- and therefore the actions -- of everyone, not just members of the ruling class. (I don't see how any one who has lived in the US could deny this, or how a historical materialist could have expected anything different.) In a sense then, a shared culture does imply a kind of "collective responsibility".
Since you read this website, you might be interested that Trotsky did not feel the need to mince words in discussing white racism of his era (1933): "But today the white workers in relation to the Negroes are the oppressors, scoundrels, who persecute the black and the yellow, hold them in contempt and lynch them." And he exhorted his followers in the US to carry out "an uncompromising merciless struggle ... against the colossal prejudices of the white workers". You might also be interested, if you haven't seen it, to read what Lenin had to say about how a layer of English workers benefited materially from the super-exploitation of the English colonies, and how this hobbled the workers' movement.
I'm not sure I've answered your questions, but I hope at least it's the beginning of an answer.
You also asked about my "position on Hannah-Jones". I know her only from this one article. She writes well and with passion, and she brings out some historical facts that eveyone needs to know. But her analysis leads to a dead end. It operates at a superficial level that ignores the material basis of racial oppression and its roots in capitalism/imperialism. Some of her prose descends into what people sometimes called "Pork Chop Nationalism" in the 1970's, when what's wanted is the "revolutionary nationalism" of people like Fred Hampton, who before his murder by the state was forging an alliance between workers and community members of all colours (the original Rainbow Coalition). She even seems to want to drive a wedge between Africa and its diaspora! Claiming to combat racism without connecting it to imperialism as Malcolm X did is dangerously misguided.
rosa roja TJ 15 hours ago
Thanks for the link, TJ. Actually I had not read her article, but now that I have, I can state with certainty that nowhere does she claim or imply there is a biological basis to racism. She referred to "DNA" only in one sentence, where it is obviously intended as a metaphor. For wsws
to imply the opposite was not honest.
Now let me make a start on your questions. I do NOT endorse the NYT viewpoint, in fact I rarely read them these days. Always the voice of the capitalist ruling class, they have more recently degenerated so much that most of their articles are more fluff and propaganda than they are news.
I will reply to your other questions in a separate post.
rosa roja Yasir 21 hours ago
"All you scholars should know, the conditions and the execution of slavery was much different than what was done in the Americas."
This is very important. You have put your finger on what is dishonest about this article. Equally important is that modern slavery was part of a bigger phenomenon, a Euro-American racism/imperialism that is a fundamental mode of organization of capitalism on a world scale.
One thing I would add, however, is that I do not think that a "level playing field" is a good description of what we want. We want a cooperative society that has no economic winners and losers.
rosa roja 21 hours ago
Response to Pierre, Jim Bergren, MB, de rubempre.
To Pierre:
My comments are not meant for you. I comment here because I believe that the site has many honest readers who are anxious for an honest discussion. It has them because it tells the truth about many things that the bourgeois media lies about. Unfortunately wsws in important ways ALSO deviates from the tradition it claims to uphold.
If you look at my old comments you will see that in many cases I praised articles here. It happens rarely now. If and when I decide that all the thoughtful readers have been driven away by comments like yours, I'll stop commenting.
To MB and Jim:
If you read the article carefully, I think you will agree with me. The authors wrote, "Hannah-Jones's reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive racial antagonisms from innate biological processes." If she really said this, evidence should have been provided. The use of a metaphor is hardly evidence.
To de rubempre:
The metaphor does NOT imply that people of European descent are biologically programmed to be racists. It is merely implying that racism is deeply embedded in the history and present of the US. If the article wants to dispute that, fine, but don't make charges you cannot substantiate.
rosa roja rosa roja a month ago
Too many responses to reply to separately!
Dear Warren, Pierre, Eric, Matt,
I commented as I did because I think we need to be objective, and objectivity demands that we not cherry pick quotes to fit a preconceived point of view. Unfortunately the article did so in my opinion.
That was the only reason I commented, but I will also try to address some of the more general points you all have raised:
1. AOC is a social democrat and nothing more, but for the moment she is intervening in politics in a positive manner. Should we be unhappy about that?
2. Social democracy too often turns into "social imperialism". I see no sign of that in AOC's statements.
3. Support for decolonization of Puerto Rico is valid and important. Maybe a website based in the centre of the Empire has a hard time understanding this.
4. To slam Ocasio-Cortez as a fake because she's a member of the Democratic Party is disingenuous. I personally do not believe the party can be reformed, but that doesn't mean that people who try to reform it are all hypocrites.
rosa roja 4 months ago
Attempts by characters like Shockley and Herrnstein
to "scientifically" justify imperialism/racism and class-exploitation are repugnant but they are hardly new. They are as old as capitalism and always promoted by the ruling class. If anything is new it is the success of the Cambridge students in excluding this particular bourgeois ideologue from their university.
oswald durand pierre • 3 hours ago
Pierre, your 'innocence' in this matter is really revealing of the unhealthy political atmosphere you dwell in.
I assure you that it is no revelation to me that politicians are "SELECTED" by their party bosses before being presented to their constituents to be elected. Reading your comments leads me to believe that you think there's some kind of conspiracy involved to foist Black politicians on an unsuspecting public. Really?
Let's look at the selection of Barack H. Obama. As far as I know, he made all the moves required to be in contention to get the backing of people with power in his party.
He did so by going to the right schools, holding the right jobs, marrying the right kind of lady and making friends with the right kind of people. His trajectory was similar to that of his rivals for the democratic nomination. If you can show me that the rules that apply were cast aside on his behalf, I will take your claim on affirmative action as a serious one instead of the nonsense I think it is, used by White losers to salve their bruised egos.
Tom Peters wrote: "The ruling class, generally speaking, decided to increase the numbers of black people in bourgeois politics, big business, academia, the state apparatus, etc. One of the mechanisms for this was affirmative action policies.
Obama is an obvious concrete example of this change: His elevation to the presidency would have been inconceivable in the Jim Crow era. He has also publicly stated that he "undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” in his academic career. https://www.nytimes.com/200...
Oprah Winfrey's rise to worldwide fame and fortune also wouldn't have happened under Jim Crow. Again, this seems like an obvious point to make. Winfrey's first broadcasting jobs were helped by broadcasters' affirmative action policies, as she herself was aware.
If one compares the position of these individuals to that of black political leaders and celebrities in 1960, the difference is obvious: Obama and Winfrey are both richer and far more powerful. It doesn't require much special insight or painstaking analysis to see the change that has taken place in the ruling class."
Mr. Peters is correct, the Jim Crow era is dead and the ruling class has gotten better at picking its representatives, certain nostalgic types want to revive it. My main objection to the anti-affirmative action crowd is the exaggeration of the import of these programs. So what if she got her first job due to some employer's affirmative action policies, lots of Whites get these breaks for reasons ranging from the employer seeing something of him/herself in that young person, to the desire to have sex with the candidate for the job.
If affirmative action is to be judged by the end results, the bourgeoisie's investment in Obama and Winfrey paid rich dividends, based on his management of the 2008 economic crisis and her ability to flog products such as books, etc. on tv. The WSWS may not like these facts but it cannot deny the fact it was money well spent.
Why is the WSWS fixated on a program that began it's death agony as far back as the Bakke case, forty-one years ago, and is now dead an buried? If, as the WSWS likes to claim, affirmative action impeded the advance of the proletariat's march to power, why did reversals to that program fail to lead to the WSWS's favored outcome? Too bad you failed to read Trotsky on the "Negro Question". He would have shown you how a real revolutionist approaches such problems.
oswald durand Ozmay • 3 days ago
Ozmay, thanks for the link. You are correct that I object to the impression given that Blacks who hold positions in science, business and other fields do so solely because of affirmative action. That's a lie. I have zero objection to criticisms of some black public figures who make overly broad claims. To me they are as ridiculous as people who want to reduce Black successes to 'affirmative action'
Saturday, September 07, 2019
Religious Information.
Nixak*77* Jim a month ago
IMO the issue w you view, besides being basically conjecture, is it seems you think Josephus could have never heard of Yeshua, His brother Ya'akov [aka James] nor even Yokhanon ['John' the Baptist] until after Josephus went to & made Rome his home. The fact is Josephus [aka Yosef ben Matityahu] was born in Judea & in fact was of the Levite Priestly tribe [as was apparently Yokhanon the Baptist] & lived in Judea till his early 30s, up until the Roman siege of Jerusalem. Thus IMO what Josephus wrote about Yeshua [& Ya'akov & Yokhanon the Baptist, too] was likely based on Judean sources, even more so than Roman 'Xtian' ones, w Roman 'secular' sources as a supplemental [IE: docs & info re: Pontius Pilate's tenure as Roman Imperial Gov of Judea]. In fact IMO w Josephus having ties to Judean priestly class, he may have even heard 'insider info' about how the Hi-Priest & Sanhedrin turned Yeshua over to Pontius Pilate for execution from {ex}priests &/or {ex}members of the Sanhedrin themselves!
Nixak*77* Guest a month ago
IMO 'Jesus Mythicists' [including their grand guru Rich Carrier] are mostly LAME. I mean there's Tyler below trying to compare Yeshua to 'Wonder Woman' of all {non}people. I mean that's so damn LAME I see no reason to even comment on it to debunk it.
- Then there's Chris: First Chris tries to set-up a bunch of straw-men that I didn't even cite re Yeshua's historicity ala: Phlegon and Thallus... In fact the excerpts I posted re the historical Yeshua were taken directly [basically word for word] from Wikipedia on the issue [meaning what I posted ain't just my 'opinion'], & it is they who note what Josephus & Tacitus have to say re Yeshua, & that most true historians take those 2 sources to be about as good as it gets re confirmation of ancient historical persons.
- Then Chris makes 2 specific assertions that I knew to be erroneous- IE: that 'Chrestus' was a common / typical ancient 'Jewish' [= Judean / Hebraic] name [NOT!], & that G.Mark's Yeshua [aka 'Jesus'] was based on 'Jesus Ben Ananias' from Josephus' 'Antiquities of the Jews'- Which is obviously false as most real Bible scholars say G.Mark was written circa 60 - 70 ACE, while Josephus' 'Antiquities' was written 2 - 3 DECADES later circa 93-94 ACE!! So Chris then tries to salvage his blunder by saying 'Jesus Ben Ananias' was also spoken of in Josephus' 'Jewish War' written circa 78 ACE, but somehow Chris failed to see that's still at-least 1 - 1.5 DECADES too shy / too late to salvage his bogus HYPE-O-Thesis!!
- IMO Chris is likely too 'obtuse' to get the point, which is for those who actually know something about the subject(s), just these 2 easily refutable erroneous assertions on his part show he likely don't really know WTF he's talking about re the subject!!
But IMO Chris' 'inspiration' re 'Jesus b.Ananias' allegedly [but FALSELY] being the template for G.Mark's Yeshua, is 'top' 'Jesus Mythicist' 'guru' Rich Carrier, who tries to assert the same lame {non}'reasoning' that Apollonius is the template for the Gospels' Yeshua- Even tho the 'tales' Apollonius' was written a full 125 - 150 YRS AFTER all 4 Gospel accounts were written, & the evidence actually shows that the alleged 'miracles' claimed to be linked to Apollonius were actually 'inspired' by the Gospels so 'tales of Apollonius' could be hyped as an attempted counter-narrative to Yeshua's story- NOT vice-versa!! Which means either Carrier's done some really piss-poor {non}'scholarship', or he's deliberately being disingenuous & misleading on the issue!!
Chris also tries to assert G.Luke's author was in contact w Josephus, yet fails to cite any [real] sources or make any truly reasonable argument(s) to support such a dubious assertion!
So next Chris tries to diss Yeshua as just some 'nobody' who wandered around Judea stirring up trouble, & ended-up getting himself killed. So I then pointed out there are jokers who try to diss M.Gandhi & ML.King Jr in much the same way!!
- So then what does Chris stoop to doing? He resorts to the typical spewing of wanna-be 'clever' ad-hominems & [not-so] 'wise'-cracks!
Nixak*77* Guest a month ago
} The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain, although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.
- While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.
- In Books 18 and 20 of Antiquities of the Jews, written around AD 93 to 94, Josephus twice refers to the biblical Jesus. The general scholarly view holds that the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, most likely consists of an authentic nucleus that was subjected to later Christian 'interpolation'... On the other hand, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman states that "few have doubted the genuineness" of the reference found in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".
- Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44, describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He writes that founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself. {
I did NOT know of Suetonius, but he seems to be a key early supplemental back-up who supports what Tacitus [& even Josephus] document & record about Yeshua.
Nixak*77* Matthew Taylor 2 months ago
Uhm Matt, humans originated in the tropic regions of Africa, & from there initially migrated to the tropical / near-tropical regions of Asia [IE: the so-called mid-east, the Mesopotamia & the Indian sub-continent & then SE-Asia, Paupa New Guinea, Australia & NZ, & then on to the Pacific Islands]. The problem w pale-skin in such tropical-regions, is it's readily subject to UV radiation damage which can even result in skin-cancer [FYI white Aussies & NZers have the world's highest rate of melanoma, closely followed by Israelis].
- As such pale-skin only became viable & advantageous, when AMH ancestors of Europeans finally migrated into the Nordic regions of Europe, which on average has far less bright sun-light than tropical Africa & Asia.
Note: 'Ironically' European & Caucasian males tend to be much 'hairier' than men of African [& most other men of non-Euro] ancestry.
PS: Apparently the trait for pale-skin, blond-hair & blue-eyes was / is a quite recent phenomenon in human 'evolutionary' development. AMH humans' origins in Africa date back to circa 200K - 300K ybp [some even say perhaps 350K ybp], yet the trait for pale-skin, blond-hair & blue-eyes apparently only dates back to about 6000 yrs ago.
I spoke repeatedly about governance based on non-sectarian neutrality & said jack about setting-up any 'theocracy, yet you've spun that to accuse me of not wanting a Govt based non-sectarian neutrality but rather wanting to set-up a theocratic state- Humm...
- You must be a 'mind-reader' to try to assert that I really don't mean what I've actually said & that I really mean what I've never said- WOW!!
Nixak*77* dandbj13 2 months ago
Name a state-atheistic state that you think was / is successful? Communist China, N.Korea, Stalin's USSR, Pol-Pot's / Khmer-Rouge's Cambodia??! Or even a country run by atheists tho not necessarily officially an atheistic state- IE: Napoleon's France or Mussolini's fascist Italy??
Nixak*77* dandbj13 2 months ago
FYI: Slave-colony perpetrator Napoleon was an atheist [as was David Humes], freedom-fighter Toussaint L'Ouverture who opposed Napoleon's slave-colonial forces, was NOT.
Slave concentration-camp perpetrator Mussolini was an atheist, freedom fighters Omar Mukhtar & Haile Selassie who opposed Mussolini's imperial fascist forces, were NOT.
PS: 'We' [as(s) in secular {in}'humanists'] did NOT do much of jack! Your secular {in}'humanist' ilk was mainly MIA / AWOL on the issue when it really mattered- Duhh!! So chattel-slavery ended NO-thanks to your secular {in}'humanist' ilk!! Yet you & you ilk keep trying to usurp undue credit re the issue by misusing the 'Royal We'- Humm...
Nixak*77* dandbj13 2 months ago
And I can just keep pointing out the fact that even as(s) your secular {in}'humanistic' ilk have tried to usurp undue credit for the abolition of slavery, you-all were basically MIA / AWOL on the issue in the 1700s & 1800s when it actually mattered [yet top atheists were perpetrators of slavery IE: Napoleon, David Humes, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol-Pot, etc...]; even as those at the fore-front in the fight against slavery were 'Folks of Faith'! And apparently that same trend continues into the 20th & 21st centuries re the Nobel Peace Prize, too!!
Nixak*77* Matthew Taylor 2 months ago
Pr You: 'Dr. {WL.}Craig says that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem implies the universe had a beginning, that is false. That is not what it says...'
Uhm NOT according to the theorem's co-author cosmologist Dr Alex Vilenkin: From TuftsNow @ Tufts Univ: In the Beginning Was the Beginning: Cosmologist Alex Vilenkin does the math to show that the universe did indeed had a starting point - “For many physicists, the beginning of the universe is uncomfortable, because it suggests that something must have caused the beginning, that there should be some cause outside the universe,” says Alex Vilenkin
Excerpts from a 2012 Interview w Dr Vilenkin: } There’s a scientific consensus that our universe exploded into existence almost 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. But that theory raises more questions about the universe’s origins than it answers, including the most basic one: what happened before the Big Bang? Some cosmologists have argued [even still] that the universe could have no beginning, but simply always was.
- In 2003, Tufts cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin and his colleagues, Arvind Borde, [Prof of Math], and Alan Guth, prof of physics at MIT, proved a mathematical theorem showing that, under very general assumptions, the universe must have had a beginning.
- Dr Vilenkin: For the eternal inflation model, what we can show mathematically is that there is no end to this process. So some people thought maybe you could avoid a beginning, too. But our 2003 theorem shows that [avoiding a beginning] is impossible for this scenario. Although inflation may be eternal into the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past. .
- A cyclic universe runs into the second law of thermodynamics, which says that any system left to itself eventually reaches the state of maximum disorder, called thermal equilibrium. So if the universe were cyclic, then in every cycle, the disorder in the universe would increase. Eventually the universe would reach this thermal equilibrium state, which is a totally featureless mixture of everything—this is not what we see around us. - One hypothesis about a cyclic universe [tries] avoids this problem of thermodynamics. There are models of a cyclic universe in which the volume grows in every cycle. This way, the universe expands and contracts, but contracts to a larger volume than in the previous cycle. So even though disorder increases, disorder per unit volume doesn’t change. - That’s possible, but our 2003 theorem poses a problem because if the volume of the universe grows, then there [still] must have been a beginning. So the cyclic universe scenario doesn’t avoid a beginning either.
- And the cosmic egg? - There are classical physics models for this static universe to sit there forever and then suddenly start expanding. But what we showed is that, quantum mechanically, this universe is not stable. - What we showed [in the new paper] is that this closed, static universe also has a probability of collapsing quantum mechanically. Its probability of collapse is nonzero, and therefore it could not have existed forever, either. So this emergent egg scenario, if you include quantum mechanics—and we should—is not viable either... {
So per BGV theorem's co-author Dr Vilenkin, WL.Craig is NOT misrepresenting the theorem's implications. The BGV theorem does indeed imply the Universe must have had a beginning. Plus logically & mathematically there's a real problem w the idea that the Universe 'began' / can be extended into the infinite past. The problem mathematically is the same w trying to reach infinity in the future from now [or any specific point time {in the past or future} that can be 'measured' from now], you can never actually reach future infinity from now, only approach it indefinitely. So now reverse that scenario w the hypothetical 'starting point' being time = negative infinity, you could never reach any specific point in time [ala NOW] 'starting from' t = negative infinity [= the problem of infinite regress]. That fact alone implies the Universe had to have a definitive starting point in the past, that's actually 'measurable' / definable from our current time. For that past point in time the current best guesstimate is approx 14 bybp, & past that initial bang-Bang 'singularity' there was nothing physical [= measurable]- NOT space, matter or energy, nor even time [as we know them].
- I know you strict-materialists don't like & thus try to deny the real implications of the Big-Bang 'singularity' [IE: that the Universe popped into existence from nowhere & nothing {physical} some 14 bn yrs ago], because it's got you-all in a real 'pickle'. But...
Name a state-atheistic state that you think was / is successful? Communist China, N.Korea, Stalin's USSR, Pol-Pot's / Khmer-Rouge's Cambodia??! Or even a country run by atheists tho not necessarily officially an atheistic state- IE: Napoleon's France or Mussolini's fascist Italy??
Nixak*77* dandbj13 2 months ago
FYI: Slave-colony perpetrator Napoleon was an atheist [as was David Humes], freedom-fighter Toussaint L'Ouverture who opposed Napoleon's slave-colonial forces, was NOT.
Slave concentration-camp perpetrator Mussolini was an atheist, freedom fighters Omar Mukhtar & Haile Selassie who opposed Mussolini's imperial fascist forces, were NOT.
PS: 'We' [as(s) in secular {in}'humanists'] did NOT do much of jack! Your secular {in}'humanist' ilk was mainly MIA / AWOL on the issue when it really mattered- Duhh!! So chattel-slavery ended NO-thanks to your secular {in}'humanist' ilk!! Yet you & you ilk keep trying to usurp undue credit re the issue by misusing the 'Royal We'- Humm...
Nixak*77* dandbj13 2 months ago
And I can just keep pointing out the fact that even as(s) your secular {in}'humanistic' ilk have tried to usurp undue credit for the abolition of slavery, you-all were basically MIA / AWOL on the issue in the 1700s & 1800s when it actually mattered [yet top atheists were perpetrators of slavery IE: Napoleon, David Humes, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol-Pot, etc...]; even as those at the fore-front in the fight against slavery were 'Folks of Faith'! And apparently that same trend continues into the 20th & 21st centuries re the Nobel Peace Prize, too!!
Nixak*77* Matthew Taylor 2 months ago
Pr You: 'Dr. {WL.}Craig says that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem implies the universe had a beginning, that is false. That is not what it says...'
Uhm NOT according to the theorem's co-author cosmologist Dr Alex Vilenkin: From TuftsNow @ Tufts Univ: In the Beginning Was the Beginning: Cosmologist Alex Vilenkin does the math to show that the universe did indeed had a starting point - “For many physicists, the beginning of the universe is uncomfortable, because it suggests that something must have caused the beginning, that there should be some cause outside the universe,” says Alex Vilenkin
Excerpts from a 2012 Interview w Dr Vilenkin: } There’s a scientific consensus that our universe exploded into existence almost 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. But that theory raises more questions about the universe’s origins than it answers, including the most basic one: what happened before the Big Bang? Some cosmologists have argued [even still] that the universe could have no beginning, but simply always was.
- In 2003, Tufts cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin and his colleagues, Arvind Borde, [Prof of Math], and Alan Guth, prof of physics at MIT, proved a mathematical theorem showing that, under very general assumptions, the universe must have had a beginning.
- Dr Vilenkin: For the eternal inflation model, what we can show mathematically is that there is no end to this process. So some people thought maybe you could avoid a beginning, too. But our 2003 theorem shows that [avoiding a beginning] is impossible for this scenario. Although inflation may be eternal into the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past. .
- A cyclic universe runs into the second law of thermodynamics, which says that any system left to itself eventually reaches the state of maximum disorder, called thermal equilibrium. So if the universe were cyclic, then in every cycle, the disorder in the universe would increase. Eventually the universe would reach this thermal equilibrium state, which is a totally featureless mixture of everything—this is not what we see around us. - One hypothesis about a cyclic universe [tries] avoids this problem of thermodynamics. There are models of a cyclic universe in which the volume grows in every cycle. This way, the universe expands and contracts, but contracts to a larger volume than in the previous cycle. So even though disorder increases, disorder per unit volume doesn’t change. - That’s possible, but our 2003 theorem poses a problem because if the volume of the universe grows, then there [still] must have been a beginning. So the cyclic universe scenario doesn’t avoid a beginning either.
- And the cosmic egg? - There are classical physics models for this static universe to sit there forever and then suddenly start expanding. But what we showed is that, quantum mechanically, this universe is not stable. - What we showed [in the new paper] is that this closed, static universe also has a probability of collapsing quantum mechanically. Its probability of collapse is nonzero, and therefore it could not have existed forever, either. So this emergent egg scenario, if you include quantum mechanics—and we should—is not viable either... {
So per BGV theorem's co-author Dr Vilenkin, WL.Craig is NOT misrepresenting the theorem's implications. The BGV theorem does indeed imply the Universe must have had a beginning. Plus logically & mathematically there's a real problem w the idea that the Universe 'began' / can be extended into the infinite past. The problem mathematically is the same w trying to reach infinity in the future from now [or any specific point time {in the past or future} that can be 'measured' from now], you can never actually reach future infinity from now, only approach it indefinitely. So now reverse that scenario w the hypothetical 'starting point' being time = negative infinity, you could never reach any specific point in time [ala NOW] 'starting from' t = negative infinity [= the problem of infinite regress]. That fact alone implies the Universe had to have a definitive starting point in the past, that's actually 'measurable' / definable from our current time. For that past point in time the current best guesstimate is approx 14 bybp, & past that initial bang-Bang 'singularity' there was nothing physical [= measurable]- NOT space, matter or energy, nor even time [as we know them].
- I know you strict-materialists don't like & thus try to deny the real implications of the Big-Bang 'singularity' [IE: that the Universe popped into existence from nowhere & nothing {physical} some 14 bn yrs ago], because it's got you-all in a real 'pickle'. But...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)